At the base of decisions are habits of thought - what people who study persuasion like myself call "constructs." These are stretched or replaced over a lifetime in the process of learning, but some people develop defensive routines to avoid change, resulting in a hardening of their constructs. George Bush has this problem. In his mind, the wagons are circled. Any disagreement is wrong and that's all there is to it. The trouble is, we let him get away with this.
All assertions, claims, decisions, commentary are connected to ways of seeing the world. This is true of even simple claims. "It's going to rain" would seem an odd statement if it were said without looking up at clouds or implying some knowledge of the day's weather report. But even that wouldn't be enough to make the claim sturdy. A claim supported by data is supported by a rule. If you push people for their reasoning, they, as a rule, provide one. For example -- when there are gray clouds, it usually rains. This structure is then held up by an account or reason for the rule - because clouds turn gray when they are heavy with moisture. Philosopher Stephen Toulmin developed a model of reasoning structure that looks rather like this when applied to the question of whether rain is imminent:
Data _________________________________ Claim
Gray clouds`It's Going to rain.
Rule
(Since)
Gray clouds indicate rain
Backing
Gray clouds are heavy with moisture
Now, there are many points at which we can attack this rain logic even without being a meteorologist. We can address the claim - "No you're wrong about rain. You've said that before and it hasn't rained." Here we're not attacking the rest of the structure at all. But, we could do so, perhaps starting with the data. "How gray are the clouds and how many are there in the sky now? We could challenge the rule by countering with specific instances when gray clouds were evident but rain didn't occur. If the rule is then debunked, the data-claim link on which it rests is weakened. And we could do something similar for the Backing.
Okay, so let's apply this to George Bush's reasoning. Or is it Karl Rove's reasoning? Anyway, for every Presidential claim (decision) made there is a structure on which it relies. But the Democrats don't go after that level. They tend to work away at the surface about who is wrong or right, who has power, who doesn't. Harry Reid came closest the other day when he said that Bush is President of the United States, not King because he knows the President sees executive privilege as a foundation for much of what he does. "I'm the president, so I'm right."
Even the press doesn't adequately probe, but instead appears to be content with inadequate explanations. In this way, opportunities to refute White House claims are lost. Every station shows the same sound bites. Why don't we hear journalists ask, "How is it, for example, specifically, that the troops will suffer if the bills don't come to your desk soon?" "How soon is soon?" and "What time constraints, precisely, are we looking at here?" "Where are the data for that?" "How reliable are the data?" "What rule supports the link between delay and harm to the troops?" "What has happened in the past that makes a delay detrimental - as a rule?" And, "How long a delay has been, as a rule, detrimental?"
I point this out because the constant barrage at the surface of issues alone will weary the American people and get us nowhere. "You're wrong, Mr. President" just isn't enough. Assuming he is out of touch or not intelligent also allows him off the hook too easily.
It's time to insist that this President lay out his logic. How is it that the passage of bills providing funding for troops undermines them? Why isn't the President's unwillingness to sign the real delay? There's a mismatch there. The President doesn't want a delay, but he is delaying. Yet, you don't hear this kind of logic challenge being levied - not often enough.
It's time to dig a little deeper, to stop George Bush in his tracks when he tries the usual - "You're to blame for what I'm about to do" and when he makes a claim that boggles the mind. Let's hear more often: Excuse me, Mr. President. But where's your data?